leads others to do wrong is key here. Now, I know you and other protestants view mankind as so totally depraved that it is incapable of choosing the good when confronted with any kind of material stimulus, but the Church disagrees.
I'm now answering for the benefit of others reading this, because you're obviously not interested in thinking. Anyway, scandal isn't wrong because of some necessity attached to the relation between the stimulus and the sin, but because it's just wrong to offer a stimulus to sin. It doesn't need to guarantee the sin in order to be wrong; it's just wrong to make living morally more difficult. And since we are rational animals who have certain systems that operate involuntarily, it's possible to manipulate those systems without regard for the person's will. The person doesn't need to actually lust for scandal to be a sin; the mere presenting of a temptation, which is then either accepted or rejected, is sufficient.
A pie on the windowsill does not LEAD another to do wrong. The appearance of glistening abdominal muscles on monday morning does not LEAD another to do wrong. A law saying "this is ok!" does.
I'm not taking a position either way on the case described in the OP. But the appearance of sexually alluring things, combined with our fallen disposition to take pleasure in sexually alluring things outside their proper context, does lead one to do wrong, in the sense of making it more difficult to do right, because one is presented with a stimulus to sin that can be difficult to eliminate.
"vary" vs "exhibit some variation" in this case is distinct in that one is a dishonest attempt to minimize said variation.
No it isn't.
But that doesn't matter. You go on to agree with me. You seem to accept that cultures define whether a dress has a sexual connotation. We as a culture may accept Victoria's Secret Billboards, but we also code lingerie as sexual-- and thus such displays are immodest.
No, we do more than that. We "code" a certain level of exposure as sexual, because it's obviously something that men find alluring and are disposed to react in a sexual manner toward. If one doesn't react in a sexual manner toward that, one has abnormal dispositions. But it's not the covering that is sexual, it's what's not covered.
It is interesting to me that you bring up bikinis, as the response to the bikini seems to separate the properly ordered individual from the pervert. Ask the youths the follow up question: "upon seeing a woman in a bikini, do you lust after the wearer, or are you able to see something as attractive while not also going...
This is so wrong, it's laughable. First, it's not required that the viewer actually lust, just that a temptation is presented to lust. Second, exposing 90%+ of your body just is sexual. At the very least it's sexual in hypersexualized Western culture. "You perverts!" you cry. Sorry, that's fallen nature. If you don't have a sexual reaction to 90% of an attractive woman's exposed body, I think you should probably hold off on judging other people's perversions, because that's not normal.